Ruminations from a jaded old guy

Menu

Tag Archives: climate

Or really anyone at all? A new study just published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacologydrives a stake through the heart of EPA’s claims.

The study compared daily PM2.5 levels in California with daily death counts during the 13 years between 2000 to 2012. Over those 4,745 days, no association could be found between PM2.5 levels and the over two million deaths included in the analysis. EPA claims that elderly people are most vulnerable to the allegedly lethal effect of PM2.5. But the California study specifically examined this issue and found no association between PM2.5 and deaths among the elderly.

Without a doubt this is the largest and best-conducted epidemiologic study ever on PM2.5. Virtually every death in California was considered and the state is meticulous about its air-quality data. California has the ultimate range in air quality, from the best to the worst in the U.S. In comparison, previous EPA-funded studies have focused only on limited (read “cherry-picked”) urban areas, rely on guesstimated or assumed PM2.5 levels and often include deaths from accidents, homicides and other causes that can’t possibly be related to PM2.5.

The whole idea of a ‘climate protection plan’, as well as sounding like some sort of insurance racket, is loaded with suspect assumptions about supposed effects of human activities on the inherent natural variation of Earth’s ocean-atmosphere system. DW.COM reports on what’s seen by some as Germany’s Moroccan climate embarrassment, as some of its own […]

The European energy policies would impose a $676 billion drag on the U.S. economy, the report states, and result in Americans paying an extra $4,800 per year to heat their homes.

The price increase would ultimately lead to the loss of several million U.S. jobs, according to the report, which is part of a series of studies conducted by the group leading up to the presidential election. The group compared U.S. and European energy prices between 2008 and 2014.

“The types of policies being advocated by leading candidates, such as restricting energy production and imposing new mandates, would drive up energy prices and reduce America’s global competitiveness,” said Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy.

European restrictions on low-cost, existing electricity supply and oil and natural gas supplies, as well as a cascade of subsidies propping up the solar and wind power industries, contribute to the problem in European states, according to Harbert’s group.

The German government, for instance, shovels more than $1.1 trillion into the wind power industry, despite the fact that wind turbines have not actually reduced carbon emissions enough to slow global warming.

Carbon taxes, subsidies, and restrictive policies, the report states, have made Europe almost completely dependent on other countries for 70 percent of its natural gas and 88 percent of its crude oil; whereas the U.S. receives only about 4 percent and 27 percent of gas and oil from foreign countries, respectively.

Energy expenditures would more than double from $583 billion to $1,220 billion under the EU price scenario. This $610 billion increase in costs would directly reduce the amount of money each household has available to spend on goods and services.

This is the ultimate fact sheet for debunking what has become the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s most potent regulatory weapon — the claim that fine particulate matter (soot and dust called PM2.5) in outdoor air kills people. This sheet will be updated regularly as needed. This will be Version 1 (September 22, 2016). Please let me know if you have comments/suggestions.

<snip>

Transparent science conflicts with EPA’s secret science. The EPA’s claim that PM2.5 causes long-term death is grounded in two long-term epidemiologic studies, commonly referred to as the (1) Harvard Six-Cities Study [17] and the (2) “Pope” study [18]. Both studies are controversial for many methodological reasons. But the methodological controversies cannot be resolved because EPA refuses to release and/or refuses to compel release of the mortality data used in the studies to independent researchers for purposes of re-analysis and replication. For results to be considered to be scientifically credible, they must be capable of being independently replicated. In contrast, a large analysis of the recent daily air quality and daily death data from California for 2007-2010 reports no association between PM2.5 and death. [19] The data from the California study are available upon request from the researchers.

But haven’t EPA’s PM2.5 claims been validated by its independent science advisers? No. The group of independent science advisers formed to review EPA air quality science is the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). In 1996, when the CASAC was actually mostly comprised of independent advisers, CASAC concluded that EPA had not shown that PM2.5caused death. While subsequent CASAC panels have ruled in EPA’s favor, these panels are almost exclusively comprised of researchers who receive hundreds of millions of dollars worth of research grants from EPA — and wind up passing judgment on their own work. These more recent CASAC panels can hardly be considered as independent of EPA. The nature of the PM2.5 science has not changed since 1996 — but composition of EPA’s “independent” panels has. [20]

What about claims that PM2.5 from indoor cooking kill people? The World Health Organization (WHO) claims that smoke from indoor cooking kills more than 4 million people die every year. [21] The studies used to support this claim depend entirely on the EPA’s claim that PM2.5 kills people. So the WHO’s claim is not supportable. While many individual researchers (not EPA-related) have attempted to examine whether indoor cooking increases deaths rates, they have so far not been able to link PM2.5 with death. [22]

Conclusion: PM2.5 does not kill anyone. The EPA’s claims of PM2.5 lethality rank among the most nonsensical, fraudulent and readily disprovable scientific claims ever.

Coastlines are actually gaining in size in a warming world, confounding climate change claims they would shrink as sea levels rise.

A new study by the Dutch Deltares Research Institute shows the Earth is actually gaining more land than it’s losing, disputing claims that#Climate Change is causing increased sea level rise. The study showed our planet actually gained 107,000 square miles over the past three decades, including 21,000 square miles of coastline. That means continents are gaining in size, and not shrinking.

Conversely, the study showed the Earth had only lost 71,000 square miles of land during this same time period, including 12,500 square miles of shoreline. Some scientists have held that in a warming world, the coastlines would be the first casualties as melting ice sheets poured excess water into the oceans. Even President-Elect #Obama said in 2008 that his winning the election meant the rise of the oceans would now begin to slow. Turns out the oceans didn’t need his help after all.

Completely unexpected

The study’s researchers, led by Gennadii Donchyts, used a tool called the Deltares Aqua Monitor to formulate its conclusions, which were published in Nature Climate Change. The researchers had anticipated the coastlines were already receding only to discover they were gaining in size across the planet. One study author told BBC News they were surprised to find more land than the seas were taking.

A new international organization aims to prevent ratification of the costly and dangerous Paris global warming treaty which is being promoted by the EU and the present US administration.

“CLEXIT” (CLimate Exit) was inspired by the Brexit decision of the British people to withdraw from the increasingly dictatorial grasp of the EU bureaucracy.

Without any publicity or serious recruiting, Clexit has attracted over 60 well-informed science, business and economic leaders from 16 countries.

The secretary of Clexit, Mr Viv Forbes from Australia, said that widespread enforcement of the Paris climate treaty would be a global tragedy.

“For the EU and the rest of the Western world, ratification and enforcement of the Paris Treaty (and all the other associated decrees and Agendas) would herald the end of low-cost hydrocarbon transport and electricity, and the exit of their manufacturing, processing and refining industries to countries with low-cost energy.

“For developing countries, the Paris Treaty would deny them the benefits of reliable low-cost hydrocarbon energy, compelling them to rely on biomass heating and costly weather-dependent and unreliable power supplies, thus prolonging and increasing their dependency on international handouts. They will soon resent being told to remain forever in an energy-deprived wind/solar/wood/bicycle economy.

“Perhaps the most insidious feature of the UN climate plan is the “Green Climate Fund”. Under this scheme, selected nations (“The rich”) are marked to pour billions of dollars into a green slush fund. The funds will then be used to bribe other countries (“developing and emerging nations”) into adopting silly green energy policies.

“Naturally some smart politicians and speculators in the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and in the small island nations, understand that they can profit from the Paris Treaty by gaming the rules on things like carbon credits, or milking the green fund for “climate compensation” or “green energy technology”. This will only work for a while, and when the handouts stop, the re-adjustment to reality will be very painful.

“This UN-driven war on carbon energy has already caused massive losses and dislocation of western industry. If allowed to continue as envisaged by the Paris Treaty, this economic recession will become a world-wide depression, and all nations will suffer.

“We must stop this futile waste of community savings; cease the destruction and dislocation of human industry; stop killing rare bats and birds with wind turbine blades and solar/thermal sizzlers; stop pelletising trees and shipping them across the world to feed power stations designed to burn coal; stop converting food to motor vehicle fuel; and stop the clearing of bush and forests for biofuel cultivation and plantations.”

“Carbon dioxide does not control the climate. It is an essential plant food and more carbon dioxide will produce more plant growth and a greener globe.”

When we measure temperature in our backyard, we really aren’t that concerned if the thermometer we use is off by a degree or two. Since most people live where the temperature fluctuates by many degrees every day, and the seasonal swing in temperatures can be 80 F or more, a couple of degrees doesn’t matter too much.
But in the case of global warming, one or two degrees is the entire change scientists are trying to measure over a period of 50 to 100 years. Since none of our temperature monitoring systems was designed to measure such a small change over such a long period of time, there is much disagreement over exactly how much warming has or will occur.
Whether we use thermometers, weather balloons, or Earth-orbiting satellites, the measurements must be adjusted for known sources of error. This is difficult if not impossible to do accurately. As a result, different scientists come up with different global warming trends—or no warming trend at all.
So, it should come as no surprise that the science of global warming is not quite as certain as the media and politicians make it out to be.
Increasingly, the “science” of global warming is being based upon theories of what might happen, not on what is being observed to happen. And the observations are increasingly at odds with the theory. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies upon theoretical climate models which predict about 2 C (3.8 F) of warming by the end of this century, due primarily to carbon dioxide emissions resulting from our burning of fossil fuels. The IPCC claims that this rate of warming could be catastrophic for some forms of life.
But is the Earth really warming as rapidly as the IPCC says? And, is that warming entirely the fault of humans?
In this paper I will answer some basic questions about global temperature data in particular, climate change in general, and what it all means for the debate over energy policy. The following questions are some of the more frequently ones asked of me over the last 20 years I have been performing climate change research under U.S. government funding.
These questions include:
1) Does an increasing CO2 level mean there will be higher global temperatures?
2) Can global temperatures go up naturally, even without rising CO2 levels?
3) How are temperature data adjusted?
4) Are global temperatures really going up? If so, by how much?
5) Is warming enough to be concerned about? Is warming necessarily a bad thing?
6) Could the warming be both natural and human-caused?
7) Why would the climate models produce too much warming?
8) What is climate sensitivity?
9) Don’t 97 percent of climate researchers agree that global warming is a serious
man-made problem?
10) Haven’t ocean temperatures been going up, too?
11) What does it mean when we hear “the highest temperature on record”?
12) Is there a difference between weather and climate?
13) Why would climate science be biased? Isn’t global warming research
immune from politics?
From the answers to these questions that follow it should be clear that the science of global warming is far from settled.
Uncertainties in the adjustments to our global temperature datasets, the small amount of warming those datasets have measured compared to what climate models expect, and uncertainties over the possible role of Mother Nature in recent warming, all combine to make climate change beliefs as much faith-based as science-based.
Until climate science is funded independent of desired energy policy outcomes, we can continue to expect climate research results to be heavily biased in the direction of catastrophic outcomes.